Leapfrog MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Excellently discloses blocking behavior ('blocks until the user clicks Done'), UI mechanism ('@..@ overlay'), and resolution condition ('Returns success when resolved').

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four well-structured sentences: purpose, mechanism, usage guidelines, and blocking behavior. Front-loaded with main action, zero redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers blocking nature, UI overlay, return value, and use cases. No output schema but description mentions return behavior. Minor gap: doesn't mention timeout behavior if any exists.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. Description references 'your reason' linking the parameter to the UI behavior, but with full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear specific action: 'Pause and request human intervention' with mechanism 'Shows the @..@ overlay'. Explicitly distinguishes from automation tools like 'act' or 'wait_for' by specifying human involvement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete examples: 'CAPTCHA, login wall, or any situation requiring human action'. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or named sibling alternatives (e.g., contrast with 'wait_for'), but clear context provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.